What is the Meaning of Quality?

[Pages:17]Munich Personal RePEc Archive

What is the Meaning of Quality?

Elshaer, Ibrahim

Suez Canal University, Management department, Egypt May 2012

Online at MPRA Paper No. 57345, posted 07 Aug 2014 09:35 UTC

What is the Meaning of Quality?

Dr Ibrahim A Elshaer Lecturer Suez Canal University Ismailia, P.O box 41522 Mobile: 00201023240121 Elshaeribrahim1979@

Abstract: concepts are the basic units of theory development and the building blocks of social research, this is because without well-developed conceptual definitions for the research terms, it is impossible to develop a coherent theory, moreover, it is impossible to develop a valid measure of a concept that is not precisely defined, It should be noted, however, the importance of defining concepts differs depending on the adopted research approach. In the quantitative approach, the concepts are clarified and connected to empirical indicators which will be used to operationalize these concepts before the research begins, while in qualitative research concepts remain under construction during the research not only in the operational terms, but also in theoretical terms. Given the importance of defining the study concepts, this paper evaluated the available definitions of the concept quality in order to find or propose a valid and reliable definition of quality. Keywords: Quality, concepts, quality management

Introduction: Concepts are the basic units of theory development and the building blocks of social research (Zikmund, 2003). This is because without well-developed conceptual definitions for the research terms, it is impossible to develop a coherent theory (Summers, 2001). For example, we cannot develop a meaningful theoretical rationale for why concept A should be related to concept B if the exact meaning of each of these two concepts has not been established; moreover, it is impossible to develop a valid measure of a concept that is not precisely defined (Summers, 2001). Cooper and Schindler (1998:38) have gone so far as to state that ... confusion about the meaning of the research concepts can destroy a research study's value without the researcher even knowing it. If words have different meanings to the parties involved, then they are not communicating on the same wavelength. Definitions are one way to reduce this danger.

It should be noted, however, the importance of defining concepts differs depending on the adopted research approach (Zikmund, 2003). In the quantitative approach, the concepts are clarified and connected to empirical indicators which will be used to operationalize these concepts before the research begins, while in qualitative research concepts remain under construction during the research not only in the operational terms, but also in theoretical terms (Corbetta, 2003). As a result current study uses the quantitative approach (see methodology, Chapter 3), the study concepts/constructs have been defined and operationalized before the beginning of the empirical research.

As the current study investigates the relationship between quality management and competitive advantage; the concept of quality and the constructs of quality management, and competitive advantage had to be defined and then operationalized before the beginning of the empirical research. In the next section these constructs/concept are defined and later the way they were operationalized is explained in the methodology (Chapter Three).

An extensive review of the literature was conducted to find out what makes a good definition. One criterion was adopted form Routio (2009) who identified four criteria a definition should meet: (1) Validity, which means that the definition matches the concept; it refers to just the concept and it measures what it intends to measure, nothing else. (2) Reliability means that if anyone repeats the measurement used, the result will always be the same. (3) The definition must

not be a vicious circle, for example, defining quality management as the management of quality. (4) Figurative or obscure language is not used. These four criteria are used to evaluate the existing definition of quality; quality management (QM) and competitive advantage (CA) as follows.

Quality definition

Although the term quality is quite widely used by practitioners and academics, there is no generally agreed definition of it, since different definitions of quality are appropriate under different circumstances (Garvin, 1984; Reeves and Bednar, 1994; Seawright and Young, 1996; Russell and Miles, 1998; Beaumont and Sohal, 1999; Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002; Ojasalo, 2006). Indeed, quality has been defined as excellence (Tuchman, 1980), value (Feigenbaum, 1951), conformance to specifications (Shewhart, 1931; Levitt, 1972), conformance to requirements (Crosby, 1979), fitness for use (Juran, 1974; 1988), product desirable attributes (Leffler, 1982), loss avoidance (Taguchi, 1987) and meeting customer expectations (Ryall and Kruithof, 2001; ISO 9000, 2005) (see Appendix 1). A universally accepted definition of quality does not exist for a variety of reasons (these reasons are discussed in detail later in this section). For example, broad definitions (e.g. meeting expectations, excellence) are difficult to operationalize. While narrow definitions (e.g. conformance to specifications, loss avoidance) are not sufficiently comprehensive to capture the richness and complexity of the concept (Reeves and Bednar, 1995).

Several definitions of quality presented in Appendix 1 have been evaluated using Routio's (2009) criteria in order to find or propose a new definition for the purpose of this study as follows.

Garvin (1984) described five basic approaches for quality definition (the transcendent approach; the product based approach; the manufacturing based approach; value- based approach; and the user-based approach). These approaches have been adapted, refined and expanded throughout the literature to define quality (Forker, 1991; Reeves and Bednar, 1994; Seawright and Young, 1996; Russell and Miles, 1998; Fynes and Voss, 2001; Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002; Sousa and Voss 2002; Ojasalo, 2006; and Zu et al., 2008)

The transcendent approach of quality as excellence (Tuchman, 1980:380) is derived from philosophy and borrows heavily from Plato's discussion of beauty. In this approach, quality is synonymous with innate excellence (Seawright and Young, 1996). This definition of quality is invalid and contains a figurative language according to Routio's (2009) criteria, as it can be questioned who determines standards of excellence and who determines to what extent excellence has been achieved (Reeves and Bendar, 1995). Moreover, for researchers, a definition of quality based on excellence makes it difficult, if not impossible, to measure quality in the empirical field (Garvin, 1984), which means that it fails to meet the reliability criterion because it is difficult to consistently measure quality.

Given the limitations of defining quality as excellence, Leffler (1982) introduced a measurable (reliable) definition of quality -Garvin (1984) described it as the product based approach- where quality is based on the existence or absence of a particular attribute. If an attribute is desirable, greater amounts of that attribute, according to this definition, would label that product as one of a higher quality. Leffler's (1982) definition of quality, however, is also invalid according to Routio's (2009) criteria (definition does not match the concept) for two reasons. First, quality under this definition may be inappropriate for services, especially when a high degree of human contact is involved (Reeves and Bednar, 1995). Second, according to Leffler's (1982) definition, quality can only be gained at higher cost, because quality reflects the quantity of desirable attributes that a product includes, and because attributes are believed to be costly to produce, quality goods will be more expensive (Garvin, 1984). However, Ishikawa and Lu (1985) argued that quality can be obtained at an acceptable price (value based approach); therefore, the product based approach of defining quality is not a complete definition of quality, in other words not valid (as the definition does not match the concept) according to Routio's (2009) criteria.

Likewise, another measurable (reliable according to Routio's 2009 criteria) definition of quality was introduced by Shewhart (1931) and Levitt (1972), Garvin (1984) described it as the manufacturing approach, where quality is defined as conformance to specification. Quality of conformance reflects the degree to which a product meets certain design standards. Deviations from design specification result in inferior quality, and accordingly increased costs due to rework, scrap, or product failure (Reeves and Bednar, 1995). However, customers may not know or care about how well the product conformed to some internal specifications they did not

require (Oliver, 1981). Moreover, this definition fails to address the unique characteristics of services, which require a high degree of human contact (Reeves and Bednar, 1995; Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002). As a result, the manufacturing approach of defining quality does not meet the validity criteria (definition does not match the concept, incomplete definition of quality), in particular, it is uncompleted (invalid) definition of quality for the hotel industry, which is made up of both goods and services, where goods reflect the tangible aspects such as a lobby or a guest room and services involve guest interactions with staff or hotel facilities (Barrows and Powers, 2009).

A widely used definition of quality was introduced by Juran (1951) and Juran and Godfrey (1999:2.2) (Garvin, 1984 named it as the user-based approach) which meets all the previous conditions, where quality is defined as fitness for use. The word use is associated with customer requirements, while fitness suggests conformance to measurable product/service characteristics (Nanda, 2005). On the other hand, product/service price may influence the level of the customer satisfaction (Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002). For this reason, Broh (1982) and Ishikawa and Lu (1985) refined Juran's (1951) definition of quality to be fitness for use at an acceptable price (value based approach). Broh (1982) and Ishikawa and Lu's (1985) modification strengthens Juran's (1951) definition of quality, but it is still an invalid definition of quality according to Routio's (2009) criteria because customer requirements are continuously changing (Chacko, 1998; Bowie and Bottle, 2004) and what customers require today is not what they required yesterday and will not be what they will require tomorrow (Kano et al., 1984; Hoyle, 2007). Similarly, what the management can do for them today is not what could be done for them yesterday or what it will be possible to do for them tomorrow (Ryall and Kruithof, 2001). In that sense, any attempt to introduce a valid definition of quality should address the continuous review of customer requirements (Hoyle, 2007). As a result, many previous definitions of quality such as those quality definitions proposed by Oakland (2003), American Society for Quality Control (2004), ISO 9000 (2005), Kemp (2006), and Nelsen and Daniels (2007), seem inappropriate and uncompleted (invalid according to Routio's 2009 criteria) as they ignore the continuous review of customer requirements (see Appendix 1).

By the same token, organization success depends largely on its ability to fulfil customer requirements (Barrows and Powers, 2009), but customers are only one group of the

organization's stakeholders and there are parties other than the customers that have a stake in the organization and what it does, but may not receive its product/service (Hoyle, 2007). For example, in the hotel industry these stakeholders are owners, supplier, investors, unions, government and society (Barrows and Powers, 2009). With this in mind, the term quality needs to be defined not only relative to customer requirements but also to other stakeholders' requirements as well (Hoyle, 2007). As a result, quality definitions such as those by Flood (1993), Oakland (2003), and Nelsen and Daniels (2007) (see Appendix 1), that ignore other stakeholders' requirements are invalid according to Routio's (2009) criteria.

Equally important, it is worth mentioning that some quality definitions use the term interested parties instead of stakeholders, such as those quality definitions by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 9000:2005) and Ryall and Kruithof (2001) (see Appendix 1). Interested parties are defined as "a person or group having an interest in the performance or success of an organization" (ISO 9000, 2005:17). However, competitors, criminals and terrorists have an interest in the organization, but it is more likely to be malevolent than benevolent and in these cases the organization fights off their interests rather than seeking to fulfil their requirements or satisfy them, so for the previous reason, the appropriate (valid) word is stakeholders, not interested parties (Hoyle, 2007) .

Moreover, some authors refer to meeting customer expectations in defining quality, (e.g. Ryall and Kruithof, 2001; ISO 9000, 2005) (see Appendix 1). However, often customers do not know what their expectations are, particularly with infrequently purchased products and/or services (Cameron and Whetten, 1983; Lawrence and Reeves, 1993). For this reason, defining quality as meeting customer expectations is considered the most complex definition of quality and thus, the most difficult to measure (Reeves and Bednar, 1994). Therefore, referring to customer expectation in defining quality makes the definition unreliable, according to Routio's (2009) criteria. While, what the customers require from a product/ or service can be identified and fulfilled (measured), so the appropriate meaning of quality is to fulfil customer requirements, not customer expectations (Reeves and Bednar, 1994). Finally, some definitions of quality do not refer to the quality concept but refer to something else, such as Taguchi (1989) definition which defines non-quality rather than quality (see Appendix 1). So, it appears to be an invalid definition

of quality, according to Routio's (2009) criteria, because the definition does not match the concept (Logothetis, 1992).

To sum up, according to Routio's (2009) criteria, for any definition of quality to be valid, it must encompass the meaning of conformance to internal specifications (Shewhart, 1931) which are predetermined and required by customers (Crosby, 1979), and fulfils the continuously changing requirements (Bowie and Buttle, 2004) of both the organization customer and stakeholders (Hoyle, 2007). Moreover if anyone wants to measure it in any context (manufacture and service industry) the result should always be the same (Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2002); in other words, it should be reliable according to Routio's (2009) criteria. Given the previous discussion, the review of the literature failed to find a valid and reliable definition of quality. Therefore, the current study proposes a new definition of quality mainly drawn from 1SO 9000 (2005) definition of quality as a universal definition introduced by the world's largest developer and publisher of international standards (ISO 9000, 2005), (see Appendix 1) with some modification to emphasise the continuous review of customer requirements in the definition and taking into consideration that the appropriate word to be used in the quality definition is stakeholders, not interested parties, as previously discussed. In light of the above, quality can be defined as below:

Quality is a situation when a set of inherent characteristics2 consistently fulfil the continuously changing requirements of the organization's customers31 and other stakeholders.

2 See ISO 2005 quality definition in Appendix 1 for more information about the inherent characteristics 3 Customers are a part of the organization's stakeholders but because they are the only part who pays and others receive their payment, they (customers) deserve to be mentioned separately in the definition.

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download